O'Lone v. Social Security Administration ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________             FILED
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    No. 10-11798            ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________           DEC 15, 2010
    JOHN LEY
    D.C. Docket No. 6:09-cv-01783-JA        CLERK
    BKCY No. 3:00-bk-05003-JAF
    In Re: Joseph R. O'Lone,
    Debtor.
    ____________________________________________________
    JOSEPH R. O’LONE,
    lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll                     Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
    llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll                      Defendant-Appellee.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    ________________________
    (December 15, 2010)
    Before BLACK, HULL and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Joseph O’Lone, the debtor below, proceeding pro se, appeals the district
    court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying his motion for
    sanctions against the Social Security Administration (“SSA”), based on a claim
    that the SSA violated a settlement agreement entered into between the parties.
    After review, we affirm.1
    Under an abuse-of-discretion standard, we “must affirm unless [it finds] that
    the [lower] court has made a clear error of judgment, or has applied the wrong
    legal standard.” Amlong & Amlong, P.A. v. Denny’s, Inc., 
    500 F.3d 1230
    , 1238
    (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted). We generally do not disturb the bankruptcy
    court’s credibility determinations, see In re Englander, 
    95 F.3d 1028
    , 1030 (11th
    Cir. 1996), because the bankruptcy court is best able to assess the credibility and
    evidentiary content of the testimony of the witnesses before it, see In re Chalik,
    
    748 F.2d 616
    , 619 (11th Cir. 1984). In other contexts, we have stated that we
    would not disturb a district judge’s credibility finding unless a witness’s testimony
    is unbelievable on its face. See United States v. Calderon, 
    127 F.3d 1314
    , 1325
    (11th Cir. 1997) (holding that testimony is incredible as a matter of law when it is
    “unbelievable on its face” and relates to “facts that the witness physically could
    1
    We review the bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear error and resolve legal
    questions de novo. In re Int’l Pharmacy & Discount II, Inc., 
    443 F.3d 767
    , 770 (11th Cir. 2005).
    Additionally, we review a bankruptcy court’s decision whether or not to impose sanctions for an
    abuse of discretion. See In re Mroz, 
    65 F.3d 1567
    , 1571-72 (11th Cir. 1995).
    2
    not have possibly observed or events that could not have occurred under the laws
    of nature”).
    “[W]hen the district court has affirmed the bankruptcy court’s findings . . .
    we will apply the clearly erroneous doctrine with particular rigor.” In re Jet
    Florida Sys., Inc., 
    861 F.2d 1555
    , 1558 (11th Cir. 1988). “A decision that is
    contrary to the law plainly is an abuse of discretion.” 
    Id.
     “[A]n abuse of
    discretion standard recognizes that there is a range of choices within which we
    will not reverse the district court even if we might have reached a different
    decision.” Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 
    403 F.3d 1223
    , 1226 (11th Cir.
    2005).
    Title 11 of the United States Code governs bankruptcy proceedings.
    Section 105 of Title 11 provides in part:
    The court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary
    or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title. No provision of
    this title providing for the raising of an issue by a party in interest
    shall be construed to preclude the court from, sua sponte, taking any
    action or making any determination necessary or appropriate to
    enforce or implement court orders or rules, or to prevent an abuse of
    process.
    3
    
    11 U.S.C. § 105
    (a) (emphasis added). A bankruptcy court is entitled to use its
    statutory sanctioning authority under § 105(a) for a violation of a post-discharge
    injunction order only if the party willfully violated the discharge order. In re
    Hardy, 
    97 F.3d 1384
    , 1389-90 (11th Cir. 1996).
    Bankruptcy courts also have inherent powers to impose sanctions for certain
    conduct, notwithstanding the existence of rules or statutes authorizing sanctions
    for the same conduct. Mroz, 
    65 F.3d at 1575
    ; see also In re Sunshine Jr. Stores,
    Inc., 
    456 F.3d 1291
    , 1304 (11th Cir. 2006) (recognizing the inherent power of
    federal courts, including bankruptcy courts, to impose sanctions on parties and
    lawyers). Because of their “potent” nature, “inherent powers must be exercised
    with restraint and discretion.” Mroz, 
    65 F.3d at 1575
     (quoting Chambers v.
    NASCO, Inc., 
    501 U.S. 32
    , 43-44 (1991)) (citation and footnote omitted). “A
    primary aspect of that discretion is the ability to fashion an appropriate sanction
    for conduct which abuses the judicial process.” 
    Id.
     (quotation omitted).
    In using this inherent power, the bankruptcy court must make a finding of
    bad faith. In re Walker, 
    532 F.3d 1304
    , 1309 (11th Cir. 2008). A court may
    assess attorney’s fees against a party or counsel if he “acted in bad faith,
    vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.” Chambers, 
    501 U.S. at 45-46
    (quotation omitted). For example, sanctions are appropriate if the court finds that
    4
    the responsible party practiced fraud on it, defiled “the very temple of justice,” or
    showed “bad faith by delaying or disrupting the litigation or by hampering
    enforcement of a court order.” 
    Id. at 46
     (quotations omitted). “If particularly
    egregious, the pursuit of a claim without reasonable inquiry into the underlying
    facts can be the basis for a finding of bad faith.” Barnes v. Dalton, 
    158 F.3d 1212
    ,
    1214 (11th Cir. 1998).
    Here, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying O’Lone’s
    sanctions motion, as the evidence supports its finding that the SSA did not breach
    the settlement agreement. Accordingly, we affirm.
    AFFIRMED.
    5